Young Americans for Liberty

Young Americans for Liberty is a new libertarian group starting here at Fordham University. The first meeting was yesterday and there was a great group of enthusiastic libertarians here at Fordham ready to get to work.

The next meeting will be Wednesday, April 29 at 1:00 PM. Dealy 115.

Please come out and join us.

Young Americans for Liberty: http://blog.yaliberty.org/



If you are interested in more information, please contact Phil Fraietta at Fraietta@Fordham.edu.

What is libertarianism? http://www.theihs.org/ContentDetails.aspx?id=38

Obama administration: conservatives the real terrorists

By Rachel Ring
Ring@Fordham.edu

Recently, the United States Department of Homeland Security issued a report stating that veterans returning from war, pro life activists and ultra conservatives are deemed security risks to the nation. The Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has approved the reports and stands by them, associating the threat of American “right wing extremists” with those of foreign terrorists. “She stands by the report sent to law enforcement that lists veterans as a terrorist risk to the U.S. and defines ‘rightwing extremism, as including groups opposed to abortion and immigration”, writes the Washington Times.

Napolitano continued with, “Let me be very clear: we monitor the risks of violent extremism taking root here in the United States. We don’t have the luxury of focusing our efforts on one group; we must protect the country from terrorism whether foreign or homegrown, and regardless of the ideology that motivates its violence”.

Despite being offended at the fact that veterans and people who hold contradictory opinions to those in power are being attacked and compared to terrorists, is anyone really surprised? It’s utterly ridiculous that post war veterans are being included in a report of terrorism potential risks. Furthermore, for the democratic, very left leaning administration which aligns itself with such groups as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), it’s ironic and humorous that they would target groups that simply just don’t agree with their ideas and then label them as terrorists. This is quintessential liberal hypocrisy: you can have free speech as long as you agree with them, and if not, then you’re a risk to free society.

President Obama would be wise to have this report re-worded or speak out against it, but of course he won’t, because he’s not the centrist leader that he ran his election campaign on. He’s truly a left leaning liberal who would support the prosecution of people who are deemed “right wing extremists” who simply just differ in opinion with him on matters of gun control, immigration and abortion. He might want to re-read the Constitution, with a Second Amendment that protects the right to bear arms, the laws of the nation which demand employees be American citizens and thus have taxable income and lastly that American citizens have the right to life.

There are pirate attacks in Somalia carried out by REAL terrorists (where was the President when that crisis was going on?) and a porous border with Mexico through which Al Qaeda terrorists are desperately trying to infiltrate (and who most like currently are). Those are real, concrete threats.

The Department of Homeland Security has better things to do than focus on Americans who are not in line with the leftist ideology of the current President.

America's Long History with Pirates

By Douglas Kohn
Kohn@Fordham.edu

The Somalia piracy, which has progressed from a benign tumor to a malignant cancer over the last few years, has at last been dealt a blow by the US. There must be a follow up and the Navy must pummel the port city of Eyl, where the pirates are based. There is a great historical parallel for this which should be explored.

The US Navy was created by President Thomas Jefferson for the specific purpose of disrupting Islamic piracy off the coast of Africa. Certain Islamic states were called the Barbary States, which are in present day Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya. The Sultanate of Morocco was the first country to recognize the independence of the United States after the Declaration of Independence and was also the first one then to begin to prey upon America’s seaborne trade.

It was thought for a long time that the best way to deal with these pirates was just to pay them off. At first this seemed like a good deal, until the pirates just decided that they would plunder again and extract more ransom from the American government.

The problem exploded when it came to the point that the payment to the pirates was consuming 20% of government revenue.

Finally, in 1794 Congress authorized the creation of the US Navy and its first three ships: the USS United States, USS Constellation and the USS Constitution, with three more on the way. This was done with the Barbary Pirates in mind. President Jefferson later ordered the navy to confront the Barbary Pirates in 1801.

The marines then earned their nickname ‘Leathernecks,’ because they wore leather collars to protect their necks from pirate cutlasses. In the marine hymn, the lyric ‘to the shores of Tripoli’ refers to the Barbary state of Tripoli, where the marines engaged in their first ever overseas operations. The Barbary War was fought against African Muslim pirates and this was the first time Americans ever died fighting overseas.

There is precedent for this action and these pirates will only understand force. Jefferson knew it and our leaders of today should know it.

Why the Value of the Dollar is Important, and why the Obama Administration Will Destroy It

By Phil Fraietta
Fraietta@Fordham.edu

In the midst of this recession it seems like it is impossible to pick up a newspaper and not see multiple stories concerning the economy. Interestingly enough, however, very few, if any, of these stories seem to discuss the matter of currency value.

It is an issue that has long lost interest in the United States. The policies of the Bush Administration substantially weakened the dollar, and the policies of the Obama Administration may very well end up weakening the dollar even further. But, while the issue may not receive much attention, it is one that is arguably the most important long-term issue facing the United States today.

Currently, Congress and the Federal Reserve are directed under law to make decisions in an attempt to attain short-term full-employment rather than in the best interests of the dollar. This is because according to Keynesian economic theory, the value of the dollar has little effect on the macro-economy and is only important to Americans who frequently travel or shop abroad. What the Keynesians fail to realize, however, is that the value of the dollar largely directs international investment into the United States.

But one may ask, what importance does international investment really have? International investment is of importance to the United States because it is what allows us to fund our budget deficit.

As most Americans know, we currently face a tremendous budget deficit that cannot reasonably be balanced for years to come. To make matters worse, the Obama Administration has determined that the deficit is not an important issue to face in these recessionary times and has continued to increase spending at the Federal level. Assuming the President does not retreat from his promises of tax cuts for 95% of Americans, it seems as if all of this spending cannot possibly be funded.

That is where international investment comes into play. In order to fund a deficit of such drastic proportions, without reducing government spending or increasing taxation, the Federal Government sells bonds to international investors. With doing so the government provides itself with the necessary income to fund its deficit.

But what people seem to forget is that these international investors must eventually be repaid. In this global recession, it is not crazy to assume that international investors would want to cash the bonds soon. After all, the tank of the stock markets has lost investors a lot of money and cashing in bonds would get these investors some of their money back.

So, assuming that foreign investors do suddenly begin to cash their bonds, how in the world could the Federal Government possibly pay? It seems the only way to do so is to simply print money. Obviously, printing money increases the supply of money internationally, which due to the laws of supply and demand, will cause the dollar to depreciate. If the dollar depreciates enough, we may very well find ourselves in a never-ending cycle of high inflation.

To explain, assuming the stimulus plan does work to stimulate demand and helps us escape the recession, foreign investors will be ready to invest again. However, if the dollar has depreciated sharply it will act as a disincentive to invest in American bonds because the investor will be repaid in with a weakened dollar. This means that the Federal Government will be forced to continue to print money in order to finance the deficit. Because printing money increases the money supply, it works to stimulate demand and thus creates inflation.

This is precisely what happened in Zimbabwe, where the Government turned to money printing in order to fund its deficit and now finds itself in a severe hyperinflation where prices are said to double every 24 hours. While it seems unreasonable that the United States could ever find itself in such a severe hyperinflation, it is not unreasonable to expect that printing money will cause inflation rates near 10% (an extraordinarily high number in an economy like the United States). It is now obvious why the value of the dollar is of such importance to the United States. If the Obama Administration continues to run the nation into debt and finances that debt with foreign investment, the dollar will be weakened. And, if we allow the dollar to be weakened enough, we may reach a point where foreign investors are no longer interested in investing in the United States. If this becomes the case, we can expect high inflation for the years to come.

This is not to say that we are hopeless. If the Obama Administration does act to balance the budget by reducing government spending, and the outdated Keynesian laws to strive to attain short-run full-employment are eliminated, we can avoid this fate.

To conclude, if the Obama Administration is concerned with the idea of hope, like the President claimed to be in his campaign, then this is the time to prove it.